Tag: Libertarianism

Left to our own devices we can become farmers and bakers, tailors and cobblers, plumbers and engineers, astronauts and programmers. Our possibilities are limitless as we cooperate to help ourselves and each other. “What a piece of work is man”. It takes a state to turn us into soldiers and sailors to make us kill and maim ourselves and each other. On Remembrance Sunday we should take time to think on all those that died or were injured during war and pledge never to be fooled again, by the old lie, that it is sweet and honourable that we die for our state.

Dulce et Decorum est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! — An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime. —
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, —
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Today’s daily prompt, about the egg, got me thinking about food and the basics of life. In particular, it made me think about the furore over foodbanks in Britain. These charitable concerns were set up, initially, by church groups such as the Trussell Trust, in order to help the poor and hungry in our society and to allow its members to do the most important thing that we can do as people – to look after our fellows.

It is a shame, therefore, that foodbanks have become the current political football. Rarely are they mentioned but to complain about there presence – “There should be no need for charity in a rich country like ours” – is the common refrain. The existence of foodbanks is used in many political debates as a stick to beat the opponent as a symbol of their failings. However, I would contest that it is heart-warming to see the growth of charity and people trying to help their brothers. Voluntary, local organizations such as this are better than centralised government agencies.

Man is a social animal, it is in his nature to help his fellows. Left to his own devices he is cooperative and adventurous and works in groups to increase the wellbeing of his group. An integral part of this is charity. 150 years ago there was boom in self-help and mutual aid organisations (mutual societies, friendly societies, insurance schemes, religious and trade groups) and over three quarters of working men had some form of health and unemployment insurance. These growth of these schemes was seriously hampered by the development of the current welfare state which rapidly became the monopoly provider (with all the consequent problems that monopoly providers have).

I would guess that we would all agree that we want to help those less fortunate than ourselves for whatever cause and it was this desire which promoted the developments of those schemes. Unfortunately, there has been the development of very negative views on the left and on the right of the poorer in our society. On the right there are concerns that they might be indolent or reckless and need some punitive element to their assistance to try and correct what they see as bad behaviour. On the left the poorer are seen as incompetent, unable to organize and requiring central planning to take over. The left also tend to view us all as egocentric and greedy who would not look after our neighbours were we not compelled to by act of law and threat of punishment.

Both of these views have damaged societies abilities to develop better local schemes. The welfare state has created a gap between donor and recipient, which is poor for both parties – donors can not easily influence how their assistance is used and recipients become increasingly seen as “the other”, something outside of society – apart and lesser. (However, as an aside, I have to say I am grateful of this gap when it allows me not to feel too close to the decision to use my tax payments to kill some Yemeni child.)

Welfare states may not make people lazy, there is really no evidence for this, but they do often cause dependency, and apathy, and often can have perverse incentives which reduce the ability of individuals to return to work and sometimes damage family structures. Welfare states, by their national basis, are often the reasons for people’s dislike of free movement – incomers are seen as jumping into a scheme they and their families had not established (thus felt to be receiving benefits without entitlement) rather than being viewed as possible new partners with whom to work and grow (all studies find immigration strengthens economic growth).

As we now use the term “poverty” to define a group a specific distance from the mean wealth of the population we will always have people in poverty – unless there was no deviation whatsoever in incomes (an unlikely scenario) there will always be the relatively poor and we will always need and want to aid them. All the great religions and philosophies have seen this as a cardinal act of humanity (“If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need, but withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him?” in the Bible and the Koran’s recognition that there is a “” to our wealth”) Those, often religious groups, who wish to do this through foodbanks should be applauded for their actions. We should not give all power and planning for assistance away, the less charity there is in a society the less human, less cooperative and less kind our society becomes.

In many areas of education a demonstration is better than a simple explanation. This article from FEE suggests that more people might understand the compassionate aspects of libertarianism if they saw more people “walking the walk” rather than just “talking the talk“. I felt that this needed reposted to be spread more widely.

I volunteer for American Red Cross as a disaster team leader in the Detroit area to help people in need with basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter for the night. An acquaintance of mine recently said to me, “I’m shocked that you’d do that. I mean, you’re a libertarian, aren’t you? Shouldn’t those…

Which would you prefer the red or the yellow ? Would you prefer tea or coffee ? Would you prefer I wore this dress or the first one ? Thousand of times each day we use our option to chose our preferences. When I saw the word appearing as the Daily Prompttoday, my initial thought was that “I’d prefer not to do that one, it’s too trivial” But after further consideration I realised it was one of the most important issues we face.

When we select preferences we are making a choice and this process of thinking and choosing is what makes us human. When we prefer something, and choose it, it is based on a conscious decision; an awareness of our desires and needs and consideration of consequences. When I do things, most of my actions are determined by my conscious thoughts and deliberations unlike animals which are largely driven by reflex and instinct. Though goats may eat leaves instead of snails it is not because of preference; they eat what they are wired to eat, there is no element of choice.

Our desires also have deep instinctive, animal roots but as sentient beings we elect and choose how to act in them. I may desire the sandwich you are holding, I may even need it if I am hungry, but I do not simply take it. I make a choice as to whether that is the right thing to do. Similarly, no matter how strong baser urges to mate might be, we make a choice as to whether to try and initiate mating is appropriate or wise. Our entire waking lives are a series of choices one after another. How we make these choices, how we exercise our free will to choose, is what defines us a person. The person who sees his own desires as having importance over everything else is well known to us, and generally poorly regarded. On the other hand, the individual who temperately meets her or his needs, and pays heed to the needs of other when the make their own choices, is generally well thought of.

We need to be able to make these choices in order that we can become better people. We need to be able to choose freely in order to be good. I pay my taxes reliably (I have little choice in the matter) and the money I give does help many good projects amongst the poor and disadvantaged. But I have not acted as a good person in doing this, I did not make that choice, I did not prefer to help someone else over myself, thus this was not a good act and I did not become a good or better person. If I had given a fraction of this money, by my own choice, and expressing a preference that is was used by someone else rather than myself, I would have done a much better act and may have taken the first steps to becoming a good person. (Thankfully the corollary also holds that I am not a bad person because of the tax money I gave being used for bad ends, for example funding the wars in the Middle East).

Many totalitarian states justify their removal of choice as being possible as choice is no longer necessary. If people are fed, housed, employed and repaired then there is no need for choices they say. The former eastern bloc used to argue that, as all needs were met (although they rarely were), there was no need for choice which was a capitalist decadence – why give people the choice of 10 types of car when everyone can have 1 basic car ? Choice creates envy and discord – just ensure everyone gets enough and there is no need for choice. This type of thinking does work when managing farms; feeding, housing, mating and repairing the animals can be done effectively without arranging any choice but animals don’t need choice, humans do !

When humans find themselves unable to make choices, or find that their choices make no difference, they become unwell. Seligman wrote about “learned helplessness” when he observed the effect of removing effective choice from dogs. Many stories told by the survivors of the Nazi camps reveal that once choice has been removed from life, hope also departs, and people cannot survive and live without hope.

So whether you made the choice to read this, or not, enjoy the millions of choices you are going to make in your life and try and prefer the options which will be better for you.

The story of the “Google Manifesto” continues and becomes more worrisome. For those who do not know what this is about it refers to a document written by one of Google’s engineers, in which he expressed his views on gender differences, and for which he was sacked.

The full text of his document is here. I give this link as often this document is commented upon by people who have not read it. They describe it as a “rant”, a “screed”, a “diatribe” or a Men’s Rights Manifesto. While there have been rants about the document and many diatribes about the author (often by women keen to show that they do not conform to any stereotype by using aggressive and hostile language) the document itself is not one of these.

It is an article considering the reasons that gender disparities exist and suggesting that there may be evidence that, at least in part, these differences have biological roots. It further suggests that Google, as an organization, has become to wedded to one world view as to be blind to the possibility of any other divergent views.

Considering first the gender differences; whether he is right or wrong about the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the differences between the sexes, or races, or individuals, he is clearly not wrong that this plays a part. (Anecdote alert n=2) I have recently watched my grandchildren, a boy and a girl, raised by modern forward thinking parents who eschew gender stereotypes, and it was clear that despite their rearing their biology still determines aspects of their behaviour.

The author of the Google Document felt that nature is more important than is generally credited but he does not suggest that individuals are bound by their genes. Further he is clear that these effects affect groups and averages and does not imply that no individuals can outperform others in in

It really would only be either a fool or an ideologue who felt that nature played no part whatsoever. Unfortunately is seems a lot of the latter hold positions of influence inside Google. But it really doesn’t matter whether he is right or wrong on this matter, as long as he is neither abusive or threatening, he should be allowed to express his views. How else can he recognise any errors he may have, how otherwise can others learn what he thinks.

But his views are seen as a heresy – too dangerous to be allowed to be heard for fear that they might damage the faith. Just as the Church of old used to snuff out any discordant views (and often the discordant person at the same time) the clerisy of present day thinking about diversity will not tolerate views that are out of step.

This was the second theme of his paper; that Google was intolerant of divergent opinions. Unfortunately he has proven his thesis is a very sad manner, after the involvement of the Head of Diversity, he was sacked because he “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”. He had written that he worked in an “ideological echo chamber” and having “shaming culture and the possibility of being fired”. There could not be more proof of this than his own fate. It truly is Orwellian and would not be at all out of place in “1984” to read of the Diversity Officer arranging the firing of the employee for his divergent views.

I am very disappointed in Google. I had often though their “Don’t be Evil” tag meant something but clearly not. I had allied myself with their services for this reason, but it seems it is time now to distance myself. I don’t want to use a search engine that thinks there is only one truth that can be heard. I do not wish to share my data with an organisation that feels it can decide what is appropriate to be in someone’s mind. So the search is on to find ways to reduce the revenue I generate for them. I’m away to rediscover Edge and DuckDuckGo.

Listen up folk ! Zog our tribal leader has kept us safe from harm these last months. he has protected us from wild animals who wanted to devour us. He has protected us from other tribes who wanted to kill us. He even protected us from ourselves when he lead us away from mistakes and disasters we would have made. Let us give our young women and food to the great Zog so he continues to protect us.

Listen up folk ! Our King Albert has kept us, his loyal subjects, safe for another year. He has protected us from King Zog who surely wished to invade and kill us. He has wisely guided us and avoided many a disaster that would otherwise certainly occurred without his wise council. Without King Albert the barbarians at the gate would surely have entered our lands; killing our men, raping our women, and butchering our babies. So let us give thanks as we give our labour and produce to our monarch and prepare for another year.

Listen up folk ! The church has again saved us; not just our bodies but also our souls. Our priests have guided us well in ensuring we do not fall prey to heathens at the gate. We know the pagans sit and wait for the chance to kill us and take our women and children. The warn us and protect us from the work of witches and demons. Thanks also to the clergy who, through their wise advice, have kept our souls safe. They warned us of our sins and saved us from eternal damnation and the pains of hell’s fire. So let us arrange a tithe to give a portion of our wealth to the Church so it may protect us for another year.

Listen up folk ! The government has lead us safely through another year. Without them no roads would have been built, no one would have cared for the poor, our children would have been uneducated and ignorant and doctors would not have attended to our sick. Without our ruling class we would have descended into savagery killing and raping our fellow citizens. So let us feel pride when we pay our taxes as we are protecting ourselves for another year.

Check who is taking your possessions, check who holds the power. This will let you know who is your enemy.

As a doctor I have found the unfolding tragedy befalling Charlie Gard and his family extremely upsetting to follow. This poor boy and his family are butterflies being crushed on a wheel to press home a legal point, they are unfortunates being punished having committed no crime.

Let us firstly be clear what this case is not about. Despite protestations to the contrary this case is not about the best interests of Charlie Gard. The best interests of the child(1)are clearly important and made paramount both in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (2) and in British Law with the Children Act of 1989 (3) . It is clear that all the parties involved in this debate are acting because they have the best interests of Charlie at heart. The doctors and hospital feel that they, by virtue of their knowledge, know what is best to do. His parents, through love and affection, also believe that they can see the best plan and hope for their son. Both are acting in the best interests of Charlie, this is not the problem. The problem is who decides what exactly are Charlie’s best interests.

It has always been the case that the parents of the child decide what is in the best interest of the child. This is as it should be as it reflects the natural law and ensures that the people most attached to the child’s interest are those who act as the child’s guardian. There are very few circumstances when this can be changed and they depend upon proving that the parent is being either negligent or malevolent. Neither of these factors are in play here and, if anything, the parents have taken extraordinary steps to secure chances for their child, well over and above what many parents would have been able to do.

It is interesting that, at the 24th hour, Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application to court to revise its plans (4) possibly starting to realise that the parents’ opinion may have been closer to Charlie’s best interests, than had their own opinion been. So in this difficult calculus of what is the best plan of action it appears that Charlie’s parents may have been the better judge all along.

While these arguments over the ‘best interests’ may mean that the parent disagrees with the medical team it does not mean that the parent can compel a doctor to do something they feel is inappropriate or wrong. But again this is not the case in this situation. Charlie’s parents have never asked GOSH or the NHS to undertake treatments they do no agree with. They have gathered together sufficient resources to enable Charlie to receive this treatment by doctors who believe it is, worth a trial, in the child’s interests. This should have been the end of the dispute. Charlie and his parents should have used their money to go and try this last ditch attempt, to catch this glimmer of hope.

GOSH and its staff, however, stopped this. Their court battle stopped the treatment and refused the parents the ability to move their child. In their paternalism they not only refused to help but also stopped anyone else helping. The thousands of people who collected money to help Charlie were thwarted by this as well as Charlie’s parents and the other hospitals and doctors who wanted to help.

I am a very old-fashioned doctor and I don’t fear paternalism per se. A desire to act like a father, is a a desire to be benevolent, guiding, helpful and wise. In itself not a bad thing. It becomes bad when it belittles another party and reduces their agency. When doctors worked in a professional relationship with their patients, the doctor’s paternalism would drive them to seek the best for their patient and was usually leavened by respect for the patient’s autonomy. This combination could be valuable when there were difficult scenarios – when the future was unpredictable and the efficacy of plans of action difficult to assess. Much of the placebo effect of medical intervention depends on this aspect of the relationship and large parts of the benefit of of healthcare comes from this caring, guiding, advisory aspect of medical care.

There was always one very good safeguard against this paternalism becoming intrusive or belittling, when the relationship was between doctor and patient, the patient could always terminate the relationship. If they felt that the doctor’s approach was wrong they had no need to continue to use them. This was a way to safeguard the patient and also a way in which the doctor would know that they had overstepped the boundaries and they could learn where paternalism started to erode patient autonomy. But in the NHS this is difficult. The patient can’t change their doctor without a great deal of difficulty. If they change they will probably be labelled a “difficult patient” which might mar relations with their next medical practitioner.

In addition, under the NHS the patient is no longer the employer of the doctor in the UK. The most important relationship for the doctor is the one with his employer – the state, the NHS – not the the patient directly. It is the state who pays his wages, sets his targets and assesses his performance and we know “he who pays the piper calls the tune“. In this scenario paternalism is largely unchecked and can be very dangerous. Paternalism, appearing kindly and wise, can mask actions that are not in an individual patient’s best interest. Rationing and refusal of therapy is hidden as medical advice and choices are withdrawn from the patient. Doctors often find, when working in the NHS, that their attempts to maintain professional standards and a focus on their relationship with the patient can cause them difficulties. They are made to feel as if they are being disruptive when they call for what is appropriate for the patient. They can be told they are jeopardising the budgets, failing to be a team player by not following the organisation’s line, and generally made to feel awkward if they behave in a manner that was formed by their vocation and training.

In this case paternalism seems to be being employed to sweeten a bitter pill. The state wants to end Charlie Gard’s life before all options that are available have been tried. Despite having seen parents act heroically and selflessly for their child, without an ounce of malice, they would prefer Charlie died rather than allowing the parents to try all they can do. But rather than admit this we are told that they are the wise and kindly people who know what they are doing, we are awkward and unruly children causing a fuss.

Well thank God for the fuss that Charlie’s parents have made; it may not save Charlie but they will have opened the eyes of many people and might save future families from the horror that they have had to endure. They truly are a heroic family who deserve our support (5)